How soon will Republicans start beating the drums of war against Iran?

For the past few years, we have been hearing the whispers of the conservatives for war against Iran, based on their nuclear ambitions. But, examine:
Under Republican leadership in the Congress and White House, we eliminated their most intimidating regional power (Iraq), for reasons not yet explained. Under... show more For the past few years, we have been hearing the whispers of the conservatives for war against Iran, based on their nuclear ambitions. But, examine:

Under Republican leadership in the Congress and White House, we eliminated their most intimidating regional power (Iraq), for reasons not yet explained. Under Bush, Iran's nuclear program was allowed to flourish. They developed nuclear weapons technology with impunity, while we chased "aluminum tubes" in the sands of Iraq. During that time, while our military hands were tied in Iraq, the Russians moved in to assist their nuclear ambitions, by providing nuclear fuel for their reactors

Now, Republicans want to dismiss the negotiated START treaty, which would allow for American inspectors to ensure that Russian nuclear weapons are disposed of, instead of being sold or given to Iran.

It smells like a conspiracy worthy of a Glenn Beck expose, but of course, that will never happen.

So my question is, for whom do the Republicans work? Seems to me a bit convenient that they would trust and allow the Russians so much latitude in helping "contain" the Iranian nuclear problem, yet when push comes to shove, they want to deny America the ability to fully inspect Russian nuke sites, while KNOWING the relationship between Russia and Iran.

Without START, we cannot be assured that Russia is not transferring nuclear weapons to Iran. Yet Republicans want to block it.

Hmmmmm?

I would think all other arguments would be secondary to this concern.

All opinions welcomed.

Update: @Obamalies: And I love how you completely ignored the point of my question, deflected the issue, and left out that those missiles don't have a 5000 mile range so they couldn't reach America anyway; and if they did, who would Republicans blame?? IRAN - who they enabled in the first place.

3 following

20 answers 20

Report Abuse

Are you sure you want to delete this answer?

Sorry, something has gone wrong.

Answers

Best Answer: Are you unconcerned about Iran gaining the ability to manufacture and disseminate nuclear weapons?
Do you consider those who are concerned warmongers and alarmist? It sure sounds like it to me.

Here are some drums for your amusement.

If we do not act quickly and decisively, in regards to Iran's nuclear program, we will be pulled into the conflict anyway when Israel is forced to act unilaterally. This would not be not at a time of our choosing. With Iran's pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the earth Israel can not afford to allow a psychotic tyrant like Pres. IamAnutJob to gain the ability to follow through with his promise. Apart from Israel a nuclear Iran would completely destabilize an already teetering middle east.

Earlier this year Gen.David H. Petraeus the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East told Congress that Iran is assisting al Quad by facilitating links between senior terrorist leaders and affiliate groups.

A regime with nuclear capability that supports terrorist is not an acceptable situation.

It is imperative that the necessary intervention take place at a time of our choosing and not at a time decided by others.

You mean Iran - that peaceful nation that has called for the extermination of Israel and America? That nation that beats their women and hangs their gays? That spreads terrorism throughout the world? That was on the cusp of reaching their goals of self-made nuclear weapons until the Stuxnet malware worm hit their centrifugfe farm? That Iran? Why would you expect the Republicans to want to stop that belligerent Ahmadinejad and his cronies?

When Obama was elected, I was heartbroken realizing it spelled economic disaster for the country, which it has. Then I prayed please God let us get through the next 4 years without a major war or something. Obama is weak, and opportunist countries sense this.

Obama is much better suited for the class room spouting airy fairy socialism theories until his heart is content.( the class room wouldn't make him a multi millionaire unfortunately) As a maker of foreign policy he is a bust. For those who mean us harm, let them look to 2001 to see how fast America can change politically to defend herself.

Honestly I am kind of pulling for Iran on this one. I wouldn't want to live there, but they are a sovereign nation with their own rich culture and traditions. Perhaps if left alone the Persians will assert their cultural influence once again. So long as big global corp threatens to assimilate their proud cultural heritage into the civilization meat grinder I think they will tend to go with the extreme as a defense. We have seen this before in Saudi Arabia. They were not as rigorous with their enforcement of morality and standards until the first gulf war and the presence of Americans.

I don't blame any country for not wanting to be absorbed by the global monoculture.

Anonymous · 9 years ago

6

Thumbs up

3

Thumbs down

Report Abuse

Comment

Add a comment

Submit

· just now

Only the President decides what the military does. Congress can vote for a war and not a shot gets fired until the President says so. Congress is so impotent in this process that if they vote against a war it makes no difference.

Anonymous · 9 years ago

1

Thumbs up

2

Thumbs down

Report Abuse

Comment

Add a comment

Submit

· just now

What I see in USA is: extreme American nationalism, economic imperialism in foreign lands, racism, xenophobia, militarism, interventions in another's territory, people follow orders without ask and without think, all press and its propaganda telling you are superior than the others, WAR...

The sooner the better it will only be a matter of time before they start selling nuclear arms to Al Qeda otherwise.

Anonymous · 9 years ago

3

Thumbs up

1

Thumbs down

Report Abuse

Comment

Add a comment

Submit

· just now

Comparing the track records of war vis-a-vis the Dems and the Reps, I fully expect the drum beaters to be Dems. Too bad you never took the time to find out which Party has gotten us into more wars from 1900 on.